"Olympus Inferno" is an unabashedly topical film; it was made to take full advantage of its being a full-length feature with the then- recent war between Russia and Georgia as its subject. It takes the step of being not just topical but political, and strongly advocating for the position that Georgia was the aggressor.
Regardless of how accurate that viewpoint may or may not be, as a film it relies heavily on some propagandistic methods to make this point, at the expense of just about any value as a movie. There's a great deal of emphasis placed on the visual evidence that the hero Michael gathers to prove that George attacked first, which is a strange approach to take in a film that is plainly supposed to convince people and that is also plainly not a documentary. Rather than dwelling on facts and the sequence of events, we dwell on images of Georgians shooting people heartlessly and rolling their tanks through towns. That may have happened, but it's presentation here is transparently political manipulation and not built into any drama.
The token love story of the film is awkwardly shoehorned around the necessary political set pieces and is so broadly written that is bears no interest. The American is unbelievably stupid, inexperienced, and cowardly (he can't drink, faints at the sight of blood, doesn't know how to use his own butterfly-hunting equipment, thinks he should call the embassy every second including while being shot at... the list seems endless) -- and this also makes him incredibly irritating. His Russian love-interest is incredibly brave and sensible (apart from her decision to spend any time with Michael).
This will bear historical interest if you are interested in Russian media depictions of the war with Georgia. As a piece of persuasion, it might work on you if you decide to get your information about the 2008 war from fictional films. But as a piece of art or entertainment, it fails because it doesn't really even try.
Regardless of how accurate that viewpoint may or may not be, as a film it relies heavily on some propagandistic methods to make this point, at the expense of just about any value as a movie. There's a great deal of emphasis placed on the visual evidence that the hero Michael gathers to prove that George attacked first, which is a strange approach to take in a film that is plainly supposed to convince people and that is also plainly not a documentary. Rather than dwelling on facts and the sequence of events, we dwell on images of Georgians shooting people heartlessly and rolling their tanks through towns. That may have happened, but it's presentation here is transparently political manipulation and not built into any drama.
The token love story of the film is awkwardly shoehorned around the necessary political set pieces and is so broadly written that is bears no interest. The American is unbelievably stupid, inexperienced, and cowardly (he can't drink, faints at the sight of blood, doesn't know how to use his own butterfly-hunting equipment, thinks he should call the embassy every second including while being shot at... the list seems endless) -- and this also makes him incredibly irritating. His Russian love-interest is incredibly brave and sensible (apart from her decision to spend any time with Michael).
This will bear historical interest if you are interested in Russian media depictions of the war with Georgia. As a piece of persuasion, it might work on you if you decide to get your information about the 2008 war from fictional films. But as a piece of art or entertainment, it fails because it doesn't really even try.